SPEECH 


OF 


MR.  WALKER,  OF  WISCONSIN, 


ON  THE  BILL  TO 


CEDE  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  AUGUST  13,  1850. 


The  Senate  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  following  bill : 

A  BILL  to  cede  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States  to  the  States,  respectively,  in  which  they  are  situated  ;  on 

condition  that  the  said  States  shall  severally  grant  and  convey  the  said  lands  to  actual  occupants  only,  in  limited 

quantities,  for  cost  of  survey,  transfer,  and  title  muniments  merely. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled. 
That  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States,  not  reserved  for  forts,  arsenals,  dock  yards,  navy-yards,  or  other  needful 
buildings  or  special  purposes,  or  appropriated  for  other  special  uses,  except  such  as  are  known  to  contain  mines  of  the 
precious  or  gross  metals,  or  precious  stones,  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  ceded  and  granted  to  the  several  and  respective 
States  in  which  the  same  do  lie  :  Provided,  however,  That  none  of  the  said  lands  shall  vest  in  either  of  the  said  States, 
until  the  Legislature  thereof  shall  provide  bylaw,  and  enact  the  following  provisions  and  stipulations,  to  operate,  and  be 
deemed  and  taken  as  a  solemn  and  inviolable  compact  between  such  State  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
to  wit : 

First.  That  such  State  will  grant  and  convey  the  land,  so  ceded  to  it,  to  actual  occupants  only  of  the  land  to  be 
conveyed,  in  a  quantity,  to  each  occupant,  not  exceeding  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  or  a  quarter  section,  as  near  as 
may  be,  for  the  cost  of  survey,  transfer,  and  procuring  muniments  of  title  merely,  not  exceeding  in  each  case  the 
sum  of  five  dollars  :  such  occupant,  in  every  case,  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  or  a  person  who  has  declared  his 
or  her  intention  to  become  such,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  the  head  of  a  family,  or  having  reached  the 
age  of  twenty-one  years ;  and  in  each  case  a  person  who  is  not  the  owner  of  other  land  in  the  United  States,  the  quan 
tity  of  which,  together  with  that  to  be  granted,  would  exceed  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  or  less,  as  the  quantity  may 
be  limited  by  such  State. 

Second.  That  the  land  so  to  be  granted  to  any  such  occupant  shall  be  and  remain  forever  exempt  from  forced  sale,  ex¬ 
tent,  or  levy,  on  execution  or  decree  from  or  by  any  court  of  law  or  equity. 

Third.  That  any  such  grantee,  his  heirs,  devisees,  or  grantees,  shall  be  forever  prohibited  from  alienating  or  convey¬ 
ing  the  land,  or  any  part  thereof,  so  to  him  granted,  to  any  person  or  corporation  which  owns,  or  would  thereby  become 
the  owner,  of  more  land  than  the  quantity  limited  by  such  State  as  aforesaid  ;  and,  if  a  married  man,  without  the  vol¬ 
untary  consent  of  the  wife  given  in  the  deed  of  conveyance. 

Fourth.  That  such  State  shall  require  the  occupancy  aforesaid  to  be  manifested  by  an  actual  residence  upon  and 
cultivation  of  a  part  of  the  land  to  be  couveyed  for  at  least  one  year  previous  to  any  conveyance  to  such  occupant  ; 
which  residence  and  cultivation,  with  the  other  requisites  of  a  grantee  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  proved,  by  the  oath  or  affir¬ 
mation  of  two  credible  witnesses,  before  conveyance. 

Fifth.  That  such  State  will  reserve  one  section  for  school,  and  oue  section  for  village  purposes,  a*  near  as  may  be 
to  the  centre  of  each  township.  The  section  so  reserved  for  village  purposes  to  be  laid  out  into  building  lots,  parks,  and 
public  grounds,  the  building  lots  to  be  granted  to  actual  occupants  only,  not  exceeding  one  lot  to  each,  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner  and  on  the  same  conditions  as  the  agricultural  lands  are  to  be  granted  :  Provided,  That  the  same  individual  shall  in 
no  case  receive  a  grant  of  both  a  village  lot  and  agricultural  land  :  And  provided,  also.  That  if  there  shall  be  important 
water-power  in  any  township,  the  reservation  of  one  section  for  village  purposes  may  be  so  made  as  to  embrace  such 
water-power,  and  which  water-power  may  be  so  improved,  for  the  use  of  the  village  and  neighborhood,  as  the  State 
may  provide  or  direct. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  ns  soon  as  practicable  after  the  President  shall  have  been  officially  notified 
that  any  or  either  of  the  said  States  has  made  the  provisions  and  stipulations  aforesaid,  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  cause  to  be 
made  out,  and  properly  certified,  copies  of  all  treaties,  maps,  olats,  records,  surveys,  field  notes,  or  other  muniments  or 
evidences  of  title  to  the  land  in  such  States,  and  to  torward  the  same  to  the  marshal  of  the  proper  State,  whose  duty  it 
it  shall  be  to  deliver  the  same  to  the  Governor  of  such. State,  upon  receiving,  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  the  cost  of 
transcribing  and  making  such  copies,  and  the  transmission  thereof  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  Ajii  he  it  further  enacted.  That  from  and  after  the  delivery  of  such  copies  as  aforesaid,  all  acts  of  Congress 
inconsistent  with  or  repugnant  to  this  act,  shall  i-ta‘nd  and  Re  repealed  ;  and  all  right,  title,  and  mteiest  of  the  United 
States  to  and  in  the  said  lands  shall  c<*ase,  and  they*  vnia  shall  vett  in  such  State. 


2 


Mr.  WALKER  said :  Mr.  President :  The  bill  now  under  consideration  involves  questions 
of  greater  magnitude,  in  my  opinion,  than  any  other  which  has  engaged  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  at  this  or  any  previous  session.  It  may  be  that  I  shall  not  be  able  to  make  this  mani¬ 
fest ;  but  I  may  be  able  to  present  such  views  and  considerations  aS  will  aid  the  reflection  of 
others  to  fill  up  the  deduction,  and  arrive  at  a  correct  view  of  those  questions. 

As  I.  view  the  bill  before  us,  it  involves  a  consideration  of  the  rights  oi  man,  as  man,  to  the 
means  of  life,  freedom,  and  self -subsistence.  I  shall  offer  no  argument  to  prove  man’s  right  to 
life  ;  for  a  denial  of  it  would  involve  a  censure  upon  the  Creator  for  granting  it,  against  which  it 
would  be  impious  to  offer  a  vindication.  But,  assuming  this  right  to  be  conceded,  I  proceed  to 
the  consideration  of  the  right,  or  rightful  power,  of  society  to  deprive  him  of  the  means  of  its 
enjoyment.  What  are  those  means  ?  I  shall  consider  such  only  as  are  indispensable.  The  first 
is  food  ;  the  second  raiment ;  the  third  shelter — embracing  security  against  the  elements  by  a 
habitable  mansion.  These  are  indispensable  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  life,  or  to  lice.  I 
do  not  mean  by  the  term  “enjoyment,”  'pleasure  or  happiness ;  but  I  mean  simply  use.  I  say, 
then,  that  food,  raiment,  and  shelter  are  indispensable  means  to  the  use  of  the  right  tolive.  Has 
society  the  right,  or  the  rightful  power,  to  deprive  individual  man  of  these  means?  In  words, 
I  shall  be  answered,  no  ;  and  the  inquiry  will  be  addressed  to  me  no  doubt — when  did  society 
ever  attempt  to  do  this?  I  answer — every  day,  in  modern  times,  since  society  was  organized  as 
it  now  is,  in  its  relations  to  land.  Things  that  have  become  familiar,  cease  to  strike  us  as  pecu¬ 
liar  ;  and  it  requires  thought  and  reflection  to  get  beneath  the  surface  ;  to  divest  ourselves  of 
second  nature — to  see  the  true  operations  of  causes,  which  from  their  familiarity  and  continued  ope¬ 
ration — we  are  disposed  at  first  to  deny  are  causes  at  all. 

Ever  since  the  laws  of  society  have  permitted  some  to  accumulate  to  themselves,  to  the  exclu¬ 
sion  of  others,  more  land  than  they  could  use,  a  portion  of  mankind  have  been  deprived,  to  some 
extent,  of  food — the  first  indispensable  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  life.  If  I  am  told  that  but 
few  have  starved — I  answer  that  some  have  ;  and  that  more  have  not,  is  not  by  reason  of  the 
cause  being  inadequate,  if  suffered  to  operate  to  its  results;  but  because  charity,  in  some  form,  has 
granted  the  food  to  which  the  individual  was  entitled,  as  a  product  of  his  own  labor  in  the  right¬ 
ful  occupancy  and  cultivation  of  so  much  land  as  would  yield  it.  But  charity  is  not  a  right ;  and 
he  who  lives  by  charity,  does  not  live  through  the  exercise  of  a  right.  Men  never  demand  chari¬ 
ty,  either  in  the  form  of  alms  or  employment,  as  a  right ;  and  when  society  says  to  the  individual — 
live  by  charity  if  you  have  not  land  from  which  to  produce  the  means  of  life,  the  individual  has 
the  right  to  reply — you  have  no  rightful  power  to  deprive  me  of  land  on  which  co  exercise  the 
powers  and  faculties  which  God  has  given  me,  to  produce  the  means  to  use  independently ,  and 
loithout  charity,  the  right  to  live.  This  I  could  do — this  I  would  be  willing  and  happy  to  do  ; — 
but  the  reply  has  been  hitherto  unavailing.  So  it  has  been  in  regard  to  raiment ;  and  when  I  am 
told,  as  before,  that  but  few  have  gone  naked,  I  again  answer,  that  some  have  ;  if  more  have  not, 
it  has  not  been  because  the  means  used  by  society  were  inadequate  in  their  tendency  ;  but  because 
charity,  again,  either  in  alms  or  employment,  has  afforded  the  clothing  to  which  individuals  were 
entitled,  as  the  product  of  independent  labor.  But  no  labor  is  independent  when  employed  by 
charity — labor  has  no  right  to  charitable  employment ;  but  it  has  a  right  to  employ  itself  inde¬ 
pendently,  upon  so  much  land  as  will  yield  the  food  and  raiment  indispensable  to  life  ;  or  else  the 
permissive  sentence  of  the  Creator,  that  man  shall  till  the  ground,  and  eat  bread  in  the  sweat  of 
his  brow,  is  a  mockery. 

Sir,  when  we  come  to  shelter,  including  habitable  mansion,  what  shall  we  say  ?  If  the  laws  of 
the  country  or  society  were  strictly  enforced — and  that  they  are  not,  is  again  a  dole  of  charity,  and 
not  of  legal  right — there  are  nowthousands  in  this  Republic  who  would  not  only  not  possess  the  privi¬ 
lege  of  shelter  or  mansion,  but  would  have  not  even  the  privilege  of  breathing  the  air  of  heaven. 
What  are  some  of  those  laws?  As  regards  land,  one  of  them  is,  that  he  viho  hath  dominion 
in  the  soil,  hath  dominion  to  the  heavens.  This  is  the  maxim  of  the  law  upward  ;  the  maxim 
downward  is,  that  he  who  owns  the  surface,  owns  to  the  centre  of  the  earth.  Now  where  is  the 
landless  man  to  build  his  shelter  or  mansion  ?  On  the  unowned  or  unoccupied  land  ? — there  is 
none.  It  is  all  owjied  or  occupied,  either  by  individuals  or  the  Government.  He  can  build  his 
shelter  on  the  land  of  neither  but  as  a  tresspasser,  or  at  best  by  sufferance  ;  and  if  the  latter,  he 
does  so  not  by  right,  but  by  charity.  Shall  he  build  it  in  the  highway  ? — that  would  be  a  nuis¬ 
ance,  which  would  and  must  be  abated.  If  he  build  it  over  the  land  of  another — if  that  were 
possible — he  is  equally  a  tresspasser,  or  tenant  by  permission ,  and  not  of  right.  If  he  burrow  un  - 
der  the  land  of  another,  the  case  is  the  same.  There  is  then,  no  spot  upon,  above,  or  below  God’s 
earth,  where  the  landless  have  the  legal  right  to  shelter — an  indispensable  means  to  use  the  right 
to  live.  But  suppose  he  dispense  with  shell er — where  has  he  the  right — not  as  a  tresspasser,  or 
by  permission — to  stand  up,  sit,  or  lie  down  ?  On  the  land  of  another  ? — there  he  has  no  right. 
In  the  highway  ? — there  he  would  be  trodden  or. run  over,  or  be  liable  to  removal  as  a  nuisance 
or  a  vagrant.  Then,  wherever  the  landless -may-st-a-ndr  nit,  or  lie  down — to  breathe,  to  rest,  to 
warm,  or  to  slumber — he  is  either  a  tresapassef  or  a  dependant  upon  charity,  as  the  law  now 


**PP>, 1  k 


3 


etands.  He  has  no  legal  right  to  do  so  auy where.  If  I  am  told  that  these  are  extreme  deduc¬ 
tions — that  the  law  is  rarely  so  enforced — that  charity  and  hospitality  mitigate  the  rigor  or'  the 
]avv — I  answer  that  I  am  not  expressing  strictures  upon,  or  censuring  the  charity  or  hospitality  of 
man — God  only  knows  what  the  poor  would  do  without  it ! — but  I  am  speaking  of  the  rights  of 
man,  and  how  those  rights  have  been  subverted — how  the  mere  tolerance,  charity ,  or  permission 
of  the  more  favored,  has  been  made  to  usurp  the  place  of  those  rights.  Aside  from  these,  the  law 
leaves  the  landless  man  the  right  to  no  place  whereon  to  live,  to  rest,  or  to  die  ;  and  charity  only 
lends  him  a  grave  in  which  to  repose  when  dead. 

It  the  legal  organism  of  society  thus  deprives  the  landless  of  the  means  oflife,  how  much  more 
must  it  deprive  him  of  the  means  to  enjoy  or  use  his  right  to  freedom  ?  What  a  mockery  is  the 
sound  or  name  of  freedom  to  him  who  has  the  right  to  no  place  whereon  to  rest  or  where  to  die, 
but  by  permission  of  another!  I  would  not  be  understood  to  mean  that  the  landless  have  no  in¬ 
dependence — that  they  are  to  be  bent  to  base  purposes  or  ends  ;  far  from  it.  I  know'  there  are 
thousands  of  our  countrymen,  who  have  no  home  or  abiding  place  of  their  own,  who  could  not  be 
thus  swerved  or  bent — they  would  suffer  the  chord  oflife  to  be  snapped  first ;  but  I  mean  that  they 
do  not  possess  the  means  of  freedom  to  control  their  time  and  labor,  or  to  enjoy  their  social  and 
domestic  rights  and  relations. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  right  of  man  to  the  means  of  self  subsistence,  we  approach  di¬ 
rectly  the  inquiry — what  are  those  means  1  They  are  the  means  to  produce  the  food — to  pro¬ 
duce  or  fabricate  the  clothing — to  construct  and  inhabit  the  shelter  or  mansion,  necessary  to  the 
right  to  live  ;  and  this  by  his  own  exertions,  independent  upon  charity,  or  the  permission  of  an¬ 
other  ;  and  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  his  family  also — that  the  family  circle  may  be  kept  in¬ 
tact  ;  and  not  for  the  purpose  merely  of  keeping  soul  and  body  together,  but  for  the  further  pur¬ 
pose  of  self-improvement  and  culture,  and  the  education  of  children. 

The  occupations  commonly  pursued  to  these  ends,  are  either  the  mechanic  arts  or  agriculture. 
He  who  exercises  a  mechanic  art  for  self-subsistence,  must  have  shelter  for  himself  and  family  ; 
and  to  have  it,  he  must  have  land  on  which  to  rest  it ;  else  he  will  possess  one  of  the  means  to 
live,  not  independently,  but  by  permission  or  sufferance.  If  he  exercise  the  pursuit  of  agricul¬ 
ture,  he  equally  requires  shelter  for  himself  and  family  ;  and  besides,  he  requires  an  object  on 
which  to  apply  his  agricultural  skill  and  labor  ;  and  this  object  is  land.  If  he  have  not  this  of  his 
own,  he  does  not  subsist  himself,  but  is  subsisted  by  another  through  charity  ;  for,  although  he  la¬ 
bor,  and  earn  hard  the  food,  raiment  and  shelter  he  uses  and  occupies,  the  privilege  to  labor  is  but 
a  boon  granted  ;  and  it  is  always  granted  at  a  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  laborer,  proportioned  to 
his  necessities,  and  the  number  of  those  pressed  by  like  necessities.  If  this  number  be  great,  and 
his  necessities  be  pressing  ;  if  they  have  reached  that  stage  when  hunger  craves  bread — when  the 
vital  energies  demand  warmth  and  shelter  from  the  elements  ;  he  must  either  surrender  the  right 
oflife,  or  beg  as  a  charity  the  privilege  of  laboring  to  preserve  it.  His  right  of  self  subsistence  is 
already  denied — he  is  a  pittance  slave.  His  family  circle  being  broken  up — its  members  scatter¬ 
ed — the  education  of  his  children  becomes  impossible.  Separated  from  parental  care,  influence, 
and  advice — subjected  to  the  evil  example  of  the  vicious — they  grow  up  in  debasing  ignorance, 
vice,  and  squalid  misery.  This  would  rarely  be,  if  man’s  right  to  independent  self- subsistence 
were  acknowledged  and  practised,  upon,  by  granting  his  right  to  land,  from  which  to  produce 
food  and  raiment — on  which  to  establish  his  home  and  shelter  from  the  elements,  as  a  means  of 
life  and  freedom,  and  where  to  keep  unbroken  the  family  circle. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  land  of  the  country  being  granted  free  to  actual  settlement,  there  would 
still  he  a  class  of  mere  laborers  ;  I  answer — I  admit  the  fact ;  and  further  :  I  claim  that  it  would 
be  necessary  to  the  beauty  and  harmony  of  the  system.  But  then,  labor  icould  be  emancipated ; 
the  demand  would  be  proportioned  to,  and  commensurate  with  the  supply  ;  the  laborer,  no  longer 
pinched  by  hunger,  thirst,  and  cold,  would  have  the  command  of  his  own  labor.  Instead  of 
being  under  the  necessity,  as  now,  of  begging  the  poor  privilege  of  laboring  for  bread,  raiment, 
and  shelter  lor  himself,  his  wife,  and  children — his  labor  would  be  on  a  par  with  other  necessaries 
of  society — would  be  sought  as  they  are  sought  ;  and  the  laborer  would  have  the  power  to  demand 
that  reward  for  it,  which  would  not  only  afford  the  means  of  life — such  as  lood,  clothing,  and 
shelter — but  such  as  would  furnish  besides  these,  the  comforts  of  social  and  domestic  life — of  re¬ 
creation,  mental  culture,  and  improvement — and  a  home,  where  wife,  mother  and  children,  could 
enjoy  protection  and  comfort,  and  offspring  be  reared  in  the  nuture  and  admonition  of  Heaven  ; 
to  become  useful  members  of  society  and  defenders  of  the  State,  instead  of  paupers,  vagrants, 
felons,  or  outlaws.  Has  society  the  right  to  deprive  itself  of  these  blessings,  and  to  impose  upon 
itself  such  curses,  at  a  cost  of  so  much  individual  suffering,  and  the  sacrifice  of  so  much  individ¬ 
ual  freedom,  comfort,  and  enjoyment  ?  I  think  not :  and  I  hope  the  hitherto  low  murmur  for  re¬ 
form  may  be  raised  by  the  people  to  a  voice  that  may  force  public  men  to  the  performance  of  the 
duty  so  long  neglected,  of  restoring  to  man,  as  man,  the  God-given  right  to  a  home  and  footing 
upon  earth  ;  with  the  right  to  till  the  ground — to  eat  the  bread  of  free  labor — to  build  his  taber¬ 
nacle  there — to  sitf down  with  wife,  children,  and  friends,  under  his  own  roof,  without  the  fear  of 
molestation. 


4 


Am  I  told  that  the  evils  I  apprehend  are  remote  1  I  answer — to  some  extent  they  are  upon  us 
now  ;  that  the  remainder  are  not,  is  but  an  argument  that  we  should  provide  the  preventive  before 
they  are.  When  they  have  fully  come,  prevention  will  be  impossible  ;  and  a  remedy  will  require 
the  foundations  of  society  to  be  torn  up — the  lands  to  be  distributed  as  in  France  in  1793 — to 
silence  the  cry  for  bread,  clothes,  and  shelter.  “Be  wise  to-day  to-morrow,  or  next  year,  or 
in  a  few  years  at  most,  the  public  lands  will  have  passed  from  under  your  dominion — they  will 
have  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  few  who  have  the  means  to  buy  them  ;  it  will  then  be  too  late  to 
lay  the  foundation  of  the  system  demanded  by  the  people,  and  now  under  consideration.  There 
was  a  time  when  the  happy  peasant  of  Ireland  saw  not  the  silent  operation  of  causes  which  were 
laying  the  foundation  of  the  wretchedness,  want,  and  famine  that  have  now  overtaken  his  pos¬ 
terity.  Because  he  did  not,  or  could  not  cast  his  eyes  into  the  future,  anticipate  the  evil,  and  ap¬ 
ply  the  preventive — his  posterity  now,  with  plenty  around  them — while  able  and  willing  to  toil — 
must  beg  the  food,  raiment,  and  shelter  necessary  to  life  ;  and  too  often  failing  even  thus  to  ob¬ 
tain  them,  must  famish  and  starve.  The  same  may  be  said,  to  a  great  extent,  of  England.  In 
England  and  Ireland  both,  there  is  a  population  of  about  30,000,000.  Of  this  population,  but 
about  60,000  are  land  owners — but  one  in  every  five  hundred  ! — one  person  controlling  the  soil, 
while  Jour  hundred  and  ninety-nine  go  without  rightful  food,  clothing,  or  shelter,  or  a  spot 
where  they  can  claim  the  right  to  labor,  sleep,  or  rest. 

Famine  came  upon  Ireland  in  1822 ;  an  appeal  was  made  in  England,  and  about  $1,520,000 
were  raised  for  her  relief.  During  tnis  same  year  there  was  exported  from  Ireland,  in  articles  of 
subsistence  alone,  the  value  of  $22,594,160.  These  exportations  amounted  for  the  years  1821-2 
—  3  to  more  than  $80,000,000  :  yet  thousands  starved  to  death,  according  to  law,  and  by  the  legal 
grace  of  God  !  This  could  not  have  happened,  if  each  adult  in  Ireland  had  possessed  but  one  acre 
to  cultivate  ;  but  land  monopoly  could  and  did  do  the  work  of  the  destroying  angel,  as  it  is  now 
again  doing  in  that  unhappy  country.  I  tell  the  Senate  now — and  warn  it  of  the  fact — that  men 
will  never  starve  to  death  in  a  republic — that  they  will  never  see  their  wives  and  children  starve 
and  die  before  their  eyes  in  this  republic — while  there  is  plenty  of  land  to  yield  subsistence,  but 
which  is  monopolized  to  their  exclusion.  Such  things  can  only  be  inflicted  in  a  monarchy — ab¬ 
solute  or  limited — where  political  freedom  is  hand-cuffed  and  manacled  by  a  power  which  the 
people  cannot  reach.  Here  there  is  no  such  power  ;  and  hence  no  power  to  impose  upon  Ame¬ 
ricans,  by  either  positive  or  negative  means,  the  unmitigated  miseries  of  European  w'ant  and  des¬ 
titution.  England  herself  cannot  much  longer  impose  them — even  she  is  too  limited  in  her 
powers. 

To  show  more  in  detail  the  condition  of  things  in  England  and  Ireland  under  the  effects  of  land 
monopoly,  I  will  present  an  extract  from  the  last  address  of  the  “  Industrial  Congress  ”  of  the 
National  Reform  Association,  held  at  Cincinnati : 

“  A  few  examples  of  the  extent  of  this  monopoly  may  he  instructive.  The  following  facts  are  reported  from  the 
electoral  divisions  of  Belmullei  and  Birminghamstown,  both  of  the  Union  of  Beilina  and  the  county  of  Clare: 

Area  ...  182,376  acres. 

Poponlation  in  1841  -  --  --  --  -  22,775 

Occupiers  of  lands  -  -  -  -  -  -  392  “ 

Area  cultivated  ........  2,775  “ 

“  Here  are  182,376  acres,  only  2,775  of  which  are  the  people  permitted  to  cultivate,  while  out  of  22,775  persons,  392 
occupied  the  whole  ! 

“  The  following  facts  are  reported  from  Jjewcastle  Union,  in  the  county  of  Limerick  : 

Area  -------  --  171,862  acres. 

Population  -------  -  60,000 

Land  cultivated  -  --  --  --  -  38,722  “  v 

“  Here  we  find  abundant  proof  that  Great  Britain  is  not  overpopulated  ;  for  if  60,000  persons  can  live  from  38,722 
acres,  the  whole  territory  of  Newcastle  Union  will  feed  over  250,000.  Many  other  similar  statements  could  be  made. 
All  Ireland  stands  thus  : 


Area  - 

In  crops  for  human  use  in  1847 


20,808,271  acres. 
5,238,575  “ 


“  Here  we  find  only  a  little  more  than  one-rourth  of  the  territory  of  Ireland  cultivated  for  the  support  of  man.  In¬ 
stead,  therefore,  of  there  being  a  necessity  of  starvation  in  Ireland,  she  has  abundant  land  for  the  support  of  at  least 
three  times  her  present  population.  Abolish  land  monopoly,  and  it  can  be  done. 

“  We  find  the  following  facts  in  relation  to  England  : 

Area  -  --  --  --  --  32,342,400  acres. 

In  cultivation  ------  ,  25,332,000  “ 

Arable  and  garden  -----r_  10  552,600  “ 

Meadow  and  pasture  -------  15,397,400  “ 

“  Here  we  see  that  three-fifths  of  the  extent  cultivated  are  devoted  to  the  pleasures  and  aggrandizement  of  the  wealthy 
few,  while  two-fifths  are  cultivated  for  the  supply  of  the  millions.  Besides  all  this  7.000,000  acres  are  not  under  culti¬ 
vation.  A  writer  in  one  of  the  London  quarterlies  estimates  that  the  United  Kingdon  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  can 
sustain  in  high  comfort  from  120  to  180,000,000  people.  And  yet  they  devote  hecatombs  of  human  beings  as  a  sacrifice 
to  mammon,  while  the  population  is  not  30,000,000.” 

Let  us  see  now  what  effect  the  same  cause  has  produced  upon  the  price  of  labor.  The  British 
Government,  a  few  years  since,  instituted  an  inquiry  into  the  rate  of  wages  in  various  countries 


in  Europe,  and  the  following  table  is  prepared  from  the  answers  of  her  consuls,  and  other 
documents : 


Country  and  Dis¬ 
trict. 

Description  of 
Servants. 

Sterling  currency. 
Yearly  Wages. 

Sterling  currency, 
Daily  Wages. 

With  or  with¬ 
out  board. 

With  or  with¬ 
out  dwelling. 

Yearly  ave 
rage. 

FRANCE. 

Calais 

- 

Ploughmen 

100s  to  160s  - 

- 

- 

With 

With 

130s 

4* 

Shepherds 

250s 

- 

- 

4  4 

«• 

250s 

4  4 

Laborers  - 

- 

7  l-2d 

- 

44 

without 

- 

Bologne  1 

- 

Ploughmen 

144s 

- 

- 

•  4 

with 

141s 

44 

Laborers  - 

- 

5d 

- 

without 

without 

- 

Havre 

- 

Farm  Servants 

generally 

160s  to  240s 

- 

- 

with 

with 

20I)s 

B  rest 

- 

Laborers  - 

48s  to  120s 

— 

— 

4  4 

44 

84s 

Nantes 

- 

4  4 

- 

8  l-2d 

without 

without 

- 

Cliarente  - 

- 

Farm  Servants 

60s  to  160s 

— 

— 

with 

with 

11  Us 

Bordeaux  - 

- 

Laborers  • 

- 

12d  to  15d 

without 

without 

- 

Bayonne  - 

- 

4  4 

9d  to  12d 

- 

44 

4  4 

- 

Marseilles 

- 

Shepherds 

200s  to  240s 

- 

- 

with 

with 

220s 

44 

Laborers  - 

- 

4  l-2d  to 

7d 

44 

without 

- 

Corsica 

- 

4  4 

- 

lid 

- 

without 

44 

- 

GERMANY. 

Dantzic 

- 

Farm  Servants 

52s  to  64s 

— 

— 

with 

with 

58s 

44 

Laborers  - 

- 

4  3-4d  to 

7d 

without 

44 

- 

M  ecklenburg 

- 

Farm  Servants 

100s 

— 

- 

with 

4  4 

100s 

44 

Laborers 

- 

7d 

— 

without 

4  4 

- 

Halstein  - 

- 

Harm  Servants 

73s  6d  to  100s  - 

— 

— 

with 

44 

86s  Id  3fr 

4  ( 

Laborers  - 

- 

7d 

- 

without 

44 

NETHERLANDS. 

4 

South  Holland 

- 

Farm  Servants 

200s  to  250s  - 

— 

— 

with 

with 

225s 

4  4  4  ( 

Laborers  - 

- 

3d  to  4d 

— 

44 

4  4 

- 

North  Holland 

- 

44 

- 

20d 

— 

without 

without 

- 

Friesland  - 

- 

Farm  Servants 

50s  to  166s  8d  - 

— 

_ 

with 

with 

108s  4d 

44 

Laborers  - 

- 

6d  to  lOd 

— 

without 

without 

- 

Antwerp  - 

- 

Farm  Servants 

78s  9d  - 

— 

- 

with 

with 

78s  9d 

44 

Laborers  - 

- 

5d 

— 

without 

without 

- 

West  Flanders 

- 

Farm  Servants 

06s  to  104s 

— 

— 

with 

with 

100s 

Trieste 

- 

Laborers  - 

- 

12d 

- 

without 

without 

4  4 

4  4 

- 

6d 

- 

with 

with 

Istria 

- 

4  4 

- 

8d  to  1 Od 

— 

without 

without 

- 

4  4 

“ 

- 

4d  to  5d 

_ 

with 

with 

- 

Genoa 

- 

Farm  Servants 

60s  to  100s 

— 

— 

Si 

44 

80s 

4  4 

Laborers  - 

- 

5d  to  Sd 

— 

41 

without 

- 

44 

.1 

- 

12d 

— 

without 

without 

- 

Tuscany  - 

- 

Farm  Servants 

40s 

- 

- 

with 

with 

40s 

44 

Laborers  - 

- 

6d 

- 

without 

without 

- 

Lower  Austria 

- 

- 

- 

10  l-2d 

— 

44 

- 

- 

Illyria 

- 

- 

- 

8d 

- 

4  4 

-  - 

- 

Tyrol 

- 

- 

lOd 

— 

— 

“ 

-  - 

lOd 

Galicia 

- 

-  -  - 

5  1  2d 

— 

4  4 

-  - 

- 

Lorn  bard  v 

_ 

- 

12d 

_ 

4  4 

—  — 

12d 

Venice 

- 

- 

12d 

- 

44 

- 

12d 

Yearly  average,  Federal  currency,  with  board  and  dwelling  ______  §05  67 

Daily  average  (sterling)  _________  -  -8  l-2d 


What,  sir,  is  to  prevent  similar  results  and  consequences  here,  if  things  are  permitted  to  pro¬ 
ceed  as  they  are  now  tending?  Nothing.  As  sure  as  redundant  population  shall  come — and 
come  it  will — the  few  will  have  possessed  themselves  of  the  permanent  means  of  life  ;  while  the 
millions  will  be  in  want,  wretchedness,  and  starvation.  Experience  has  shown  in  all  countries 
under  the  old  system,  that  the  greater  the  amount  of  individual  wealth  of  which  they  could  boast, 
the  greater*  amount  was  there  of  corresponding  poverty  and  destitution — and  the  less  prospect 
of  relief  to  the  suffering.  So  it  will  be  in  our  country  ;  for  the  same  causes  are  operating  to  make 
the  rich  richer,  and  the  poot  rqore  helplessly  poor.  But  if  the  action  and  policy  of  this  Govern¬ 
ment  shall  be  such  as  to  secure  its  vast  domain  in  limited  quantities,  as  homes  for  the  landless, 
free  from  sale  on  execution  ;  and  if  the  States  in  their  policy  shall  co-operate  in  achieving  this 
end,  these  evils  will  to  a  great  extent  be  prevented.  One  of  the  duties  of  the  States  will  be  to 
limit  the  quantity  ofland  each  individual  may  hold.  If  it  shall  be  said  that  a  limitation  suited  to 
our  present  population  would  not  be  suited  to  the  population  years  hence,  I  have  only  to  say  in 
answer,  that  the  difficulty  can  easily  be  met  by  a  system  of  graduated  legislation  to  meet  exigen¬ 
cies  as  they  arise  ;  trusting  that  Providence  will  send  no  greater  population  than  the  bosom  of  the 
earth  will  nourish  and  sustain.  With  an  area  of  1,584,243,200  acres  properly  distributed,  the  day 
must  be  remote  indeed,  when  such  would  not  be  the  case.  But  if  at  last  a  day  shall  come,  to 
prove  that  the  system  has  failed — that  it  was  not  perfect,  or  adequate  to  the  end — it  will  but 
prove  what  is  known  of  all  human  systems  and  institutions,  that  they  are  not  perfect.  I  am  no 
perfectionist — I  aim  not  at  perfection.  All  I  claim  is,  that  we  should  do  what  good  we  can,  and 


0 


leave  the  rest  to  a  higher  and  a  wiser  power.  Nor  am  I  an  “  agrarian.”  The  maxim  of  the 
agrarian  is,  “  that  while  one  lacks  the  necessaries,  none  should  be  allowed  to  enjoy  the  luxuries 
of  life.”  This  begets  a  continual  and  violent  levelling  policy,  to  be  deprecated  every  where,  and 
at  all  times.  I  contend  only,  that  man  should  not  he  permitted  to  speculate  or  traffic  in  that 
which  he  cannot  produce,  or  the  quantity  of  which  he  cannot  increase.  I  of  course  use  the  term 
“  produce”  in  its  ordinary  sense,  and  not  in  the  sense  of  create — and  I  mean  to  include  in  it  the 
idea  of  fabrication.  In  whatever  he  can  produce,  or  in  any  thing  lawful  of  which  he  can  increase 
the  quantity,  he  should  be  allowed  and  encouraged  to  traffic,  though  it  bring  the  highest  luxury  ; 
for  then  it  is  but  the  enjoyment  of  the  product  of  labor.  But  man  cannot  produce  land,  nor  can 
he  increase  its  quantity,  any  more  than  he  can  produce  or  increase  the  quantity  of  air  or  water ; 
yet  he  is  permitted  to  speculate  and  traffic  in  land,  and  incidentally,  as  I  have  shown,  to  traffic 
and  speculate  in  the  very  elements  of  fire,  air,  and  water. 

The  doctrines  I  hold  on  this  subject  are  those  which  were  held  by  Aristotle,  Montesquieu, 
Blackstone,  Jefferson,  Jackson,  and  Channing.  While  Rome,  Athens,  and  Sparta  were  in  thtir 
glory,  these  views  and  sentiments  were  held  by  all  their  leading  statesmen  ;  nor  did  those  coun¬ 
tries  fall  until  these  doctrines  had  been  abandoned,  or  the  systems  embraced  by  them  been  over¬ 
thrown. 

But  a  misfortune  is,  that,  in  entertaining  these  doctrines  and  views  in  modern  times,  too  many 
run  into  the  ridiculous  and  odious  doctrines  of  socialism  and  the  community  system  ;  and  come 
to  contend  that  all  things  should  be  held  in  common — as  if  the  occupancy  of  land,  as  a  natural 
right  for  the  procurement  of  the  means  of  life,  would  destroy  in  man  all  evil  passions  or  proneness 
to  vice.  The  socialism  of  Proudhon  is  an  abandonment  of  all  ideas  of,  and  dependence  upon 
Christianity?  and  a  presumptuous  arrogation  of  self-sufficiency  to  man,  that,  unaided  by  divine  in¬ 
fluence,  he  can,  of  himself,  put  off  his  grosser  nature,  and  stand  forth  in  spotless  purity.  When 
the  suffering  and  death  of  the  Saviour  shall  have  redeemed  man  from  the  thraldom  of  sin  and  the 
effects  of  the  fall,  and  not  till  then,  may  this  be  expected. 

Let  us  now  leave  general  considerations,  and  view  the  measute  before  us  in  its  bearing  upon 
the  Government  and  the  States  which  contain  no  public  land.  As  regards  the  Government,  it 
can  only  be  considered  in  its  effects  upon  the  revenue.  I  have  long  believed  that  the  Govern¬ 
ment  should  cease  to  consider  and  treat  the  public  lands  a  source  of  revenue  ;  and  I  ask  no  better 
or  higher  justification  for  this  belief  than  the  authority  of  President  Jackson.  In  his  message  of 
December  4th,  1832,  he  says  :  “  It  seems  to  me  to  be  our  true  policy  that  the  public  lands  shall 
cease,  as  soon  as  practicable,  to  be  a  source  of  revenue,  and  that  they  he  sold  to  settlers,  in  lim¬ 
ited  parcels,  at  a  price  barely  sufficient  to  reimburse  to  the  United  States  the  expense  of  the 
present  system ,”  &c.  Again:  “  To  put  an  end  forever  to  all  partial  and  interested  legislation 
on  the  subject,  and  to  afford  to  every  American  citizen  of  enterprise  the  opportunity  of  securing 
an  independent  freehold,  it  seems  to  me  best  to  abandon  the  idea  of  raising  a  future  revenue 
out  of  the  public  lands.”  The  same  idea  is  repeated  in  his  veto  message  of  December  4,  1833  ; 
and  as  far  as  I  know  or  believe,  he  held  these  views  till  he  died. 

Until  direct  taxation  shall  be  resorted  to,  the  great  and  important  source  of  revenue  to  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  must  be  dutips  on  foreign  imports.  ISow,  every  one  knows  that  the  amount  thus  to  be 
received  is  enhanced,  as  the  number  of  consumers  of  foreign  imports  is  increased.  Hence  I  con¬ 
tend  that  the  revenue  would  be  vastly  increased  by  the  policy  proposed  ;  for,  by  increasing  the 
number  of  agricultural  producers,  you  increase  the  number  of  import  consumers,  and  their  ability 
to  consume — or,  in  other  words,  their  ability  to  purchase  for  consumption.  The  Government,  I 
have  no  doubt,  would  be  the  gainer  in  her  revenue  after  sacrificing  her  receipts  from  the  public 
lands. 

If  this  argument  be  correct,  to  the  extent  of  the  augmentation  of  the  revenue,  the  measure  be¬ 
fore  us  would  be  beneficial  to  the  non-landholding  States;  and  to  a  further  extent:  for  we  pro¬ 
pose  to  relieve  them  and  the  Government  from  the  burdens  of  the  present  land  system.  But, 
beyond  all  this,  the  old  States,  equally  with  the  new,  are  interested  in  the  adoption  of  the 
proposed  system.  We  have  no  population  but  what  was  once  theirs — ours  are  now  landholders. 
When  the  old  States  join  in  ceding  the  public  lands  to  the  use  of  the  settler,  they  join  us  in  ceding 
them  to  their  own  citizens  as  well  as  ours  ;  and  they  thereby  increase  incalculably  the  number 
and  ability  of  the  consumers  of  Northern  fabrics  of  all  kinds,  and  of  the  Southern  products  of 
sugar,  cotton,  rice,  and  tobacco  ;  as  well  as  the  amount  to  be  transported  over  their  canals  and 
railroads,  and  in  their  shipping.  I  will  venture  the  prediction  that,  in  five  years  after  die  system 
shall  be  established,  one  year  will  yield  to  the  old  States  more  value  in  this  way,  than  five  would 
by  way  of  profit  on  the  sales  of  the  public  lands.  Why,  sir,  the  whole  revenue  last  year  from 
lands  was  but  $1,688,959 :  the  nett  proceeds  would  not  exceed  .$1,300,000.  The  benefits  which 
the  individual  States  would  derive  from  this,  would  not  eqaal  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the 
simple  addition  of  fifty  thousand  to  the  able  consumers  and  shippers  of  the  new  States.  As  a 
matter  of  pecuniary  interest,  therefore,  the  old  States  should  be  in  favor  of  this  system.  Whether 
we  view  the  measure,  then,  in  its  bearings  upon  the  interests  of  the  Government  or  of  the  old 
States,  it  is  one  of  correct  policy  and  sound  expediency. 


To  present  anotner  view  of  this  subject,  I  will  read  an  extract  from  an  article  in  the  “  Working 
Parmer,”  for  Ociober,  1849: 

“Of  the  |>opulation  of  17,431,852,  we  find  employed  as  follows:  Agricultural  pursuits,  1  to  every  4  1-2  persons; 
manufacturing  trades,  1  to  22  ;  navigation,  1  to  every  305  persons  ;  learned  professions,  including  engineers,  1  to  every 
289  persons ;  commerce,  1  to  every  140  persons. 

“  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that,  notwithstanding  those  engaged  in  agriculture  form  by  far  the  most  important  class,  still  not 
an  acre  of  the  public  domain  lias  ever  been  appropriated  for  their  especiai  benefit.  Every  application  for  an  appropria¬ 
tion  of  land  for  experimental  farms,  agricultural  colleges,  &c.,  lias  been  promptly  denied  ;  while  the  applicants,  after 
being  told  that  agriculture  was  a  noble  art ,  and  that,  the  farmers  were  the  bone  and  sinew  of  the  country,  have  returned 
home,  minus  their  expenses  to  Washington,  with  nothing  to  the  credit  of  the  account  but  a  list  of  empty  compliments 
from  legislators,  and  a  request  to  vote  for  their  continuance  in  office  as  a  fair  teturn  for  these  compliments.” 

I  propose  now  to  examine  the  different  propositions  which  have  been  submitted  to  the  Senate 
by  the  Senators  from  Illinois,  Massachusetts,  and  Texas. 

That  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois  has  the  virtue,  at  least,  of  being  a  bill  proposing  to  do  some¬ 
thing,  and  not  a  mere  abstract  resolution,  asserting  a  truism,  or  proposing  an  inquiry  into  a  tru¬ 
ism.  But  I  deem  it  an  imperfect  bill.  It  proposes,  it  is  true,  to  grant  land  to  the  actual  settler  ; 
but  an  actual  settler  may  be  a  man  of  wealth,  and  already  a  landholder.  The  bill,  then,  fails  in 
this  particular  to  secure  the  grant  to  the  landless  and  homeless,  as  it  should  do.  Again,  it  does 
not  guard  the  hind  when  granted  from  being  monopolized  by  the  land  speculator,  or  from  again 
accumulating  in  the  hands  of  the  few,  to  the  privation  of  the  great  mass.  Further,  the  bill  of 
the  honorable  Senator  does  not  provide  for  the  protection  of  the  land  to  be  granted,  from  forced 
sale  on  execution.  Without  this  the  grant  would  be  of  little  avail  to  the  poor,  already  burdened 
perhaps  by  the  incumbrance  of  debt  and  liability,  imposed  upon  them  by  the  crafty,  through  the 
medium  of  their  necessities  or  misfortunes.  While  it  grants  the  land,  the  bill  does  not  propose 
to  relieve  the  Government  of  the  present  system  for  the  disposal  of  the  lands.  This  can  only  be 
done  by  the  plan  proposed  by  the  bill  under  consideration — by  letting  the  States  intervene  be¬ 
tween  the  Government  and  the  settler.  The  bill  of  the  Senator  from  Illinois  is,  then,  nothing 
more  than  a  measure  to  give  away  the  public  lands — unguarded  for  any  of  the  great  and  far- 
reaching  purposes  for  which  I  have  been  contending,  and  for  which  alone  should  such  a  measure 
be  entertained  at  all.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Illinois — who,  I  believe, 
through  the  whole  course  of  his  life,  has  had  his  intentions  politically  right — must  now  see  that 
he  has  fallen  short  in  his  bill  of  making  those  provisions  which  would  secure  the  great  end  and 
object  to  be  held  in  view — the  security  and  protection  of  the  'public  domain  us  a  home  and 
abiding- place  Jor  the  otherwise  homeless. 

While  the  proposition  of  the  Senator  from  Texas  is  obnoxious  to  all  the  objections  I  have  been 
noticing,  it  dovs  not  possess  even  the  virtue  of  being  a  bill  for  any  purpose,  but  a  mere  resolution 
of  inquiry,  And  the  proposition  of  the  late  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster)  is  not 
only  a  mere  resolution, but  is  a  resolution  involving  a  mere  aostraction  or  truism.  It  is  as  follows  : 

*'■  Resolved,  That,  provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law  that  every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  every  male  per¬ 
son  who  has  declared  his  intention  of  becoming  a  citizen,  according  to  the  provisions  of  law,  of  twenty  one  years  of  age  or 
Upwards.,  shall  be  entitled  to  enter  upon  and  take  any  one-quarter  section  of  the  public  lands  which  may  be  open  to  entry 
at  private  sale,  for  the  purposes  of  residence  and  cultivation  ;  and  that  when  such  citizen  shall  have  resided  on  the  same 
land  for  three  years,  and  cultivated  the  same,  or  if,  dying  in  the  mean  time,  residence  and  cultivation  shall  he  held  and 
canied  on  by  his  widow  or  his  heirs,  or  devisees,  for  the  space  of  full  three  years  from  and  after  making  entry  of  such  land, 
such  residence  and  cultivation  for  the  said  three  years  to  be  completed  within  four  years  from  the  time  of  such  entry,  then 
a  patent  to  issue  for  the  same  to  the  person  making  snch  entry,  if  living,  or  otherwise  to  his  heirs  or  devisees,  as  the  case 
may  require:  Provided .  nevertheless,  That  such  person  so  entering  and  taking  the  quarter  section  as  aforesaid  shall  not 
have,  nor  shall  his  devisees  or  heirs  have,  any  power  to  alienate  such  land  nor  create  any  title  thereto  in  law  or  equity, 
by  (feed,  transfer,  lease,  or  any  oiher  conveyance  except  by  devise  by  will.” 

The  resolution  is  in  substance  (except  the  proviso)  nothing  more  than  a  repetition  and  declara¬ 
tion  in  favor  of  the  provisions  of  my  bill ;  and  why  was  it  necessary  to  thus  bring  the  measure 
again  before  the  Senate  in  this  abstract  and  impracticable  form  ?  But  I  would  ask  the  honorable 
Senator,  were  he  now  here,  if  he  really  meant  what  he  asserts  in  the  proviso  to  his  resolution  ? 
If  so,  he  would  establish  here  a  more  odious  system  of  life  entail  than  that  which  succeeded  the 
feudal  system  of  England  :  he  would  restrict  all  transfer  during  life,  except  by  the  last  act  of  the 
occupant — his  last  will  and  testament.  Why  do  this  ?  Why  not  permit  the  occupant  to  sell 
and  transfer  his  land,  provided  he  do  so  to  another  non-landholder?  Why  impose  this  restriction 
upon  the  man  who  may  wish  to  change  his  location  or  his  business?  A  free  transfer  of  land  or 
its  occupancy,  as  regulated  by  the  bill  under  consideration,  would  not  be  a  trafficking  in  land,  but 
in  the  products  and  improvements  of  labor.  And  why  should  this  be  restricted  or  prohibited  ? 
There  is  another  question  I  would  ask  the  late  honorable  Senator — and  there  is  no  man  alive 
more  competent  to  answer  it :  Has  Congress  the  power  to  impose,  within  the  States,  such  a  res¬ 
triction  as  that  contained  in  the  proviso  to  his  resolution?  I  presume  he  would  not  so  contend 
His  proposition,  then,  is  not  only  an  abstraction,  hut  an  unconstitutional  abstraction. 

The  bill  under  consideration  is  without  any  of  the  difficulties  upon  which  I  have  commented. 
It  secures  the  grant  to  the  landless  in  limited  quantity;  it  secures  the  grant  against  transfer,  ex¬ 
cept  to  the  landless  ;  it  secures  it  against  forced  sale  on  execution  for  debt.  But  it  docs  not  pro- 


8 


pose  to  do  these  things  by  a  direct  exercise  of  power  by  Congress;  the  States  are  introduced  to 
provide  the  detail  of  limitation — restriction  upon  transfer,  and  exemption  from  forced  sale — thus 
keeping  in  view  the  distinctive  powers  of  the  State  and  Federal  Governments.  In  view,  then, 
of  its  constitujionality — of  its  propriety  of  provision — of  the  pecuniary  interest  and  policy  of  the 
Government  and  of  the  old  States,  the  bill  before  us  would  seem  to  be  proper  and  expedient. 

But  the  measure  is  not  intended  to  be  based  upon  State  or  Government  interest  or  expediency, 
as  bodies  politic  ;  but  upon  the  individual  rights  of  man,  as  man ,  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  means 
of  life,  freedom,  and  self-subsistence.  Here  its  friends  plant  themselves — here  they  will  stand, 
and  here  triumph.  If  not  now,  it  will  not  be  long  before  they  do.  You  may  not  now  heed  the 
petitioning  voice  that  has  reached  you;  but  if  not,  the  next  session  of  Congress  shall  see  a  petition 
here  that  will  be  heeded.  This  matter  has  taken  hold  upon  the  hearts,  feelings  and  reason  of 
the  democratic  laboring  millions  of  the  land  ;  they  cherish  it  as  the  consummation  of  their  hopes — 
they  cannot  be  put  down  or  silenced.  Secret  societies  of  the  most  powerful  and  holy  kind  that 
were  ever  formed  for  secular  ends,  have  been  based  upon  the  doctrines  of  land  reform.  These 
doctrines  are  working  themselves  into  the  very  soul  of  society — they  must  and  will  have  a  hearing. 
Land  Reformers  have  suffered  much,  and  struggled  long  for  a  hearing  here — they  now  have  it. 
It  is  a  question  for  gentlemen  to  decide  for  themselves,  whether  they  will  now  obey  the  prompt¬ 
ings  of  duty  and  support  this  bill,  or  await  the  stern  censorious  voice  of  command. 

The  democracy,  the  people,  are  beginning  to  perceive  that  that  government  is  the  best  which 
secures  the  greater  amount  of  aggregate  individual  happiness.  They  have  been  inquiring,  to  what 
good  end  is  our  republic — though  of  the  happiest  form  on  earth — if  the  result  of  its  action  is  to  be, 
on  the  one  hand,  bloated  wealth,  large  landed  proprietorships — the  means  of  life  and  freedom  mo¬ 
nopolized  by  the  few;  and,  on  the  other,  a  dependant  tenantry,  with  abject  servitude,  squalid 
want,  poverty,  nakedness,  homelessness,  and  starvation1?  They  have  been  asking:  what  worse 
could  the  most  absolute  monarchy  impose  ?  They  have  at  last  found  the  answer :  that  the  true 
freedom  and  glory  of  their  country  consist  in  the  fact,  that  the  prevention  and  remedy  of  the 
evils  which  they  suffer  and  apprehend  are  left  to  themselves;  to  be  exercised,  not  through  violence 
or  insurrection,  but  through  the  ballot-box.  Aye — and  they  have  determined  to  apply  the  re¬ 
medy  and  preventive  ;  let  him  who  would  longer  resist  them,  mark  thi  writing  on  the  wall  ! 
While  there  is  yet  a  vast  public  domain,  they  demand  that  it  shall  be  thrown  open  to  free  settle¬ 
ment  by  landless  occupants,  in  limited  quantities,  so  checked  and  guarded  as  to  remain  the 
home  of  the  otherwise  homeless,  and  not  monopolized  or  aggregated  by  the  hands  of  the  few  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  many.  They  have  determined  to  put  down  the  doctrine,  “  that  the  Govern¬ 
ment  should  take  care  of  the  rich,  and  the  rich  take  care  of  the  poor."  To  accomplish  these  ends 
and  these  blessings,  are  the  provisions  and  principles  of  the  bill  now  under  consideration,  adapted 
and  designed  ;  and  I  can  and  will  here  pledge  one  State  of  this  Union — Wisconsin — that  never 
will  she  cast  her  suffrage  for  the  man  who  shall  oppose  them.  Though  young,  she  has  stood  fore¬ 
most  for  this  reform  ;  she  will  see  it  accomplished,  or  sacrifice,  to  tne  extent  of  her  voice,  the  last 
and  every  legislator  who  shall  oppose  it.  I  am  happy  to  have  heard  so  many  distinguished  Sen¬ 
ators  express  their  concurrence  in  the  principles  of  the  measure  before  us,  and  will  not  believe  it 
can  fail,  until  I  am  convinced  by  a  vote  of  the  entire  Senate.  If  this  shall  happen  now,  I  give 
notice  that,  at  every  session  while  I  have  the  honor  of  a  seat  here,  I  shall  renew  and  urge  the 
measure  till  it  triumph,  as  my  highest  earthly  ambition.  If  an  appeal  here  be  in  vain,  I  appeal 
to  the  agricultural,  mechanic,  and  'aboring  multitudes  of  the  country  to  sustain  me  in  the  effort. 
Let  them  hold  their  meetings — let  them  draw  up,  sign,  and  send  on  their  petitions,  in  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  men  who  have  the  right  to  be  heard,  and  who  will  be  heard — and  success  and  triumph 

WILL  BE  THEIRS. 


